Directors of the Global Development Group Board
Unit 6
734 Underwood Road
Rochedale, QLD 4123
30th June 2014
Dear David James Pearson
Geoffrey Winston Armstrong
Ofelia (fe) Luscombe
Alan Benson
David Robertson
I am writing on Chanti’s and Chhork’s behalf
from Cambodia in my capacity as their legally appointed advocate.
It is now five weeks since Chanti and Chhork
sent their request to you that they be provided with copies of the 2008 and
2009 MOUs that both Citipointe and GDG claim gave the church to the right to
remove and Rosa and Chita from their family in 2008 and detain them for close
to 5 years contrary to the express wishes of their parents.
Can you provide me with a time frame within
which Chanti and Chhork might receive a response to their 23rd May
request?
I have included the text of Chanti’s and
Chhork’s request below.
On a different but related topic, I wonder if
the Global Development Group would care to comment on the fact that one of its
funding partners (the Cambodian Children’s Fund) has as the head of its Child
Protection Unit a convicted Australian criminal (and former Australian Federal
police officer) by the name of James Mc Cabe? The appointment of such a man to
head up a Child Protection Unit would, as you know, not be allowed in
Australia.
Did GDG fail to pick up the appointment of James
Mc Cabe during its assessment and monitoring processes? Or, if GDG has been
aware all along of Mc Cabe’s criminal record, do you board members believe his
appointment to be in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the ACFID
Code of Conduct?
best wishes
James Ricketson
CHANTI AND CHHORK’S REQUEST OF THE
GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP – dated 23rd May 2014
We are the Cambodian mother and father
of Chanti Rosa and Chanty Cheata. Our daughters have lived in Citipointe
church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ since 2008 against our wishes.
The Global Development Group (GDG), of
which you are Executive Director, provides funding to Citipointe church’s ‘SHE
Rescue Home.’ This funding has been approved, through the Australian Council
for International Development, by AusAID.
The GDG is bound by the Australian
Council for International Development Code of Conduct and is obliged, in
accordance with the Code, to be ‘transparent’. The meaning of the word
‘transparent’ is clear in the Code of Conduct.
‘An organisation’s openness
about its activities, providing information on what it
is doing, where and how
this takes place and how it is performing’.
Neither Citipointe church nor GDG has
provided us with any of the information we have requested since Citipointe
church removed our daughters from their home in 2008. Instead, the church keeps
promising to return our daughters but never does.
We have read the ACFID Code of Conduct
and understand that we, as parents of Rosa and Cheata, are known as
‘stakeholders.’ We read the following in the Code of Conduct:
B.1.1 Accountability to
primary stakeholders
Signatory organisations
will ensure that their purpose and processes are shaped by stakeholders and
that their work is open to review and comment by partners and participants
alike. In all instances those directly affected by aid and development
activities are considered the primary stakeholders and their views afforded the
highest priority.
Obligation:
Signatory organisations
will prioritise accountability to local people and those directly
affected by aid
and development activities, prioritising their needs and rights
As stakeholders our views about
Citipointe church’s refusal to return our daughters have been ignored. As
stakeholders our needs and rights have been ignored. We are told that our
rights are outlined in two Memoranda of Understanding Citipointe church entered
into with the Cambodia government – the first in 2008 and the second in 2009.
Citipoint church and your own GDG have refused to provide us with copies of the
two MOUs so we do not know what our rights are or what we must do to have our
daughters returned to us.
As a ‘signatory organisation’ (to the
ACFID Code) the GDG is obliged to “analyse the needs and expectations of
key stakeholders in all aid and development activities, pursuing informed and
balanced accountability to each.” Our own needs and expectations have
been ignored for nearly 6 years.
We request that the Global Development
Group provide us with (a) Annual self-assessment by GDG for the years 2008 -
2014 “by the signatory organisation’s governing body”, and
(b) a reason why our complaints to
Citipointe since 2008 have been ignored. It is the responsibility of the GDG to
see to it that there is “an independent complaints handling and
discipline process.”
Finally, the Code of Conduct is clear
about the Global Development Group’s obligations:
“Obligations on the
signatory organisation to be ethical and transparent in marketing, fundraising
and reporting.”
Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has
behaved in an unethical way by presenting our daughters to sponsors and donors
as victims of human trafficking. The ‘contract’ Citipointe tricked me, as
mother, into signing on 31st July 2008 makes it clear that it was
only the fact that the family was very poor at the time that caused me to ask
the church for help for a short time. Rosa and Chita were not victims of human
trafficking. I have never been a victim of human trafficking myself, even
though Citipointe says that I was.
Could you please provide us both, as
parents, with answers to our questions and with copies of any documents the
Global Development Group has in its possession that relate to our daughters
removal and detention by your funding partner, Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ –
as you are required to do as signatories of the ACFID Code of Conduct?
Yem
Chanti Both
Chhork
Mother Father
No comments:
Post a Comment